Here's what we've learned from Trump's impeachment trial

foodonastump

I thought this was a pretty good summary of where we stand. The following excerpt stood out at me; it’s been my frustration from the start, three wasted years.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/01/politics/impeachment-watch-january-31/index.html

You might not have been paying much attention if you've been all-in on watching this impeachment trial, but there is a Democratic primary going on. While every Democratic candidate agrees that defeating Trump is their number one priority, there are many miles that separate them in how to go about it.

There's a middle lane, embodied by Joe Biden, offering a relic of the Obama era to undo what Trump has wrought.

But there's also a left lane, embodied by Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, that would serve up a nearly socialist agenda of government programs as the antidote to Trump's nationalist populism.

If their organizing principle as a party is to defeat a President who they say is threatening the fiber that holds the country together, they have not yet done a very good job agreeing how to go about it.

Trump has generated a political gravity that leaves no room for dissent against him in the GOP. Democrats are still trying to find their feet.

SaveComment140Like1
Comments (140)
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
vgkg (Va Z-7)

The demos feet will be on the march throughout the spring & summer and they'll be stomping out authoritarianism in the fall.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Chi

I think it's normal. This is how the Republican party was before Trump. A lot of moderates and some on the far right, and now the entire party has skewed far right.

I'm not sure moderates are the way to counter Trump.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
HU-885118952

More projection. The party has tempered and continues to temper after the height of the Tea Party.

The chasm is primarily due to the huge leftward lurch the Democrat party has taken, and how they've allowed the radicals to take over.

I thought Democrats would have their pick of moderates in the 2020 primary, but that's simply not the case. Their choices for a moderate candidate are Joe Biden or Joe Biden.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Chi

It's just propoganda at play. The right has started labeling concepts like healthcare for all citizens as radical progressive policies and socialism. When the reality is that it's a concept that the vast majority of other developed nations have supported for many years, and is not considered "radical" in the least but rather something beneficial for the country and its people.

I'd argue most of the "radical left" ideas are perfectly moderate for most of the world, and it's only because the right has shifted so far right that it makes these ideas look very progressive.

19 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Toby

The radicals? On almost every issue, the majority of voters support the Democratic platform, some by a wide margin. I can't think of any issue where the majority supports the GOP platform. So we are the mainstream. Trump with his white Christian nationalism is the extreme and not representative of the population. His base of white Christian conservatives is shrinking but being propped up by the Supreme Court, the electoral college, and the gerrymandering of Congressional districts, and is sadly being enabled by a majority who supports the Democratic platform but who won't get out and vote.

11 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
queenmargo

I really have second thoughts about thinking Joe Biden is a moderate candidate. I think there is more hidden than what the eye can see. Remember he is besties with Obama, UGH!

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Karen S. (7b, NYC)(NYC, zone 6)

Well said Chi.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
vgkg (Va Z-7)

I think there is more hidden than what the eye can see.

About Biden? That comment fits trump like a glove.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

queenmargo

I really have second thoughts about thinking Joe Biden is a moderate candidate. I think there is more hidden than what the eye can see.

I agree.

This comment is a hidden gem. Biden is the favorite of the prog leftists because not only is he seen by most dems as "moderate", i.e., a pretty safe/sensible choice, he would be a useful idiot, their puppet. He obviously wouldn't last beyond the first term, if he even lasted that long. His running mate would be the one to watch.

Bernie, OTOH, would be a loose cannon, not within their ability to control. My guess is that were Bernie to ultimately win, the dems would impeach him as well.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Chi

Who exactly are these alleged puppet masters?

I think the right likes to imagine and project conflict in the Dem party because the idea of a united Democratic party is terrifying to them.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
HU-885118952

Here is how fractured and Left the Democrat party has become. Now remember when you see this, just how powerful the Jihad Squad has become. They fomented impeachment, and got it.

Now, they're churning up angry mobs to boo Hillary Clinton, who was the party nominee a little over 3 years ago.

What washed into the Dem party in 2018 will ruin it.

Already has.



4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
dublinbay z6 (KS)

Your belief that the dog's tail [the Jihad Squad] is wagging the dog just shows how little you understand about what is really happening in the Dem. Party.

Kate

9 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
HU-885118952

Democrats are in for an epic impeachment hangover. Stock the Alka-Seltzer and Advil!

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

dublinbay z6 (KS)

Your belief that the dog's tail [the Jihad Squad] is wagging the dog just shows how little you understand about what is really happening in the Dem. Party.

and chi wrote above:

I think the right likes to imagine and project conflict in the Dem party because the idea of a united Democratic party is terrifying to them.

You guys have a real fixation with fear. You're either writing that you're "fearful" of whatever, or you're writing about what you think the right is "terrified" of.

That said, IMO the idea of a united Democratic party at this particular point in time is unrealistic.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
HU-885118952

elvis, the Democrat party is only going to get more fractured as the DNC quashes Bernie in favor of Bloomberg. They are going to sell out and sell out big time. This isn't going to sit well with the far Lefts and radicals in the party.

If Biden keeps flailing and flagging, the Democrat nominee will be Bloomberg.

He's got the money and is willing to spend it. What they can do with his billions is too much to resist. After the impeachment disaster, Bloomberg just might save them.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

I don't know that a united party is nearly as important as the time wasted not focused on the election. Maybe, that will turn around very quickly now that the impeachment narrative could draw to a close. But, I say "could" because many Dems are feeling like keeping the narrative alive is the appropriate course of action. But no doubt, with caucuses and primaries beginning, the election will get more attention now. Candidates will likely soon begin to drop out and quickly and Dems will soon learn who is left to focus on. Things get busy once the primaries begin.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
dublinbay z6 (KS)

"You guys have a real fixation with fear. You're either writing that you're "fearful" of whatever, or you're writing about what you think the right is "terrified" of."


Strange comment to make since I have not once mentioned fear on this thread.

I think someone might be projecting fear into perfectly neutral comments made by the Dems.

Kate

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

He's got the money and is willing to spend it. What they can do with his billions is too much to resist. After the impeachment disaster, Bloomberg just might save them.

I can't figure out Bloomberg. Does he really believe he's got a good shot at being the Dem nominee? Or is he mostly just earning his bonafides with the Dem party, by demonstrating he's willing to put his own money on the line to finance a run for president? Is his real end goal to have a bigger voice within the Dem party, and perhaps more clout?

Boy, Michael Moore (and the crowd he was addressing at that Bernie rally) were furious about Bloomberg being in the debate. Worth watching that video.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
numbersjunkie

To those on the other side of the fence, the Democrats seem to be fractured and in disarray. But's only because they are part of a cult where questioning the supreme leader is punishable by exorcism from the clan. Disagreement is normal in a "free" country and leads to progress rather than stagnation. Much better than living in a echo chamber where scripted talking points are never questions, but are instead repeated continuously by the faithful.

7 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

I read the OP CNN article, and I disagreed with almost all of it...except for the two sections discussing how the Dems are in a state of denial, and unsure about how to stop Trump.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
carolb_w_fl_coastal_9b(zone 9/10)

Calling your opponent out for things of which you are guilty is a tried and true tactic, as is attacking an opponent's strengths rather than weaknesses. Russia has mastered these tactics, and nowadays, sadly, we see them being taken up and used extensively by GOP and their enablers here in our own country.

5 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

numbersjunkie, where the Dems are right now reminds me a bit of where the Republicans were when Trump announced, because things were fluid, nobody really knew how it would all shake out, and there were challenges being made to some of the entrenched establishment types who'd controlled the party for a long time. Some of those pulled off into the grumpy Never Trumper tribe, to be replaced by other voices.

So although I admit I'm not saddened by the appearance that the Dems are fractured (hey, it's not my Party) I'm also not convinced it means they won't be able to come out of this more united in time. The question in my mind is, who they'll be united behind...which facet of the Dem party will come out on top, and will that winning group be able to be effective?

I think the Republicans have had somewhat of a sorting out process too, and it's still going on. Disagreement leading to change isn't always a bad thing.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
queenmargo

Here is what I learned from the impeachment trial:


1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

I agree with mudhouse. I find it hard to believe, after watching the GOP primary in 2016, that anyone didn't notice all the disagreement within the GOP. It's most definitely not always a bad thing.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

dublinbay z6 (KS)

"You guys have a real fixation with fear. You're either writing that you're "fearful" of whatever, or you're writing about what you think the right is "terrified" of."

Strange comment to make since I have not once mentioned fear on this thread.

I think someone might be projecting fear into perfectly neutral comments made by the Dems.

Kate

Here's the post you referenced. Why not re-read it and see if you understand it better?

elvis

dublinbay z6 (KS)

Your belief that the dog's tail [the Jihad Squad] is wagging the dog just shows how little you understand about what is really happening in the Dem. Party.

and chi wrote above:

I think the right likes to imagine and project conflict in the Dem party because the idea of a united Democratic party is terrifying to them.

You guys have a real fixation with fear. You're either writing that you're "fearful" of whatever, or you're writing about what you think the right is "terrified" of.

As a reader can plainly see, no claim was made that you, Kate, mentioned fear.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

carolb_w_fl_coastal_9b(zone 9/10)

Calling your opponent out for things of which you are guilty is a tried and true tactic, as is attacking an opponent's strengths rather than weaknesses. Russia has mastered these tactics, and nowadays, sadly, we see them being taken up and used extensively by GOP and their enablers here in our own country.

What is your point?

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
queenmargo

I take it as ANOTHER passive aggressive comment to compare us/GOP/Trump supporters/enablers as duped and brainwashed by the Russians lol.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kathy

I learned the Republicans know he is dishonest but they don’t care. They will follow him to their own demise because they know if they don’t their political career will be over anyways. Trump has the campaign money and enough info on them to kill their political career.

6 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
carolb_w_fl_coastal_9b(zone 9/10)



1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Anna

Trump isn’t fit to shine the shoes of any of our candidates. Every one of them has more integrity than trump or anyone connected to him. Some are in jail and there will be a lot more to follow.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
aegis1000

2020 Justice


Biden unseats Trump

Democrats take the Senate and hold the House

All of Trump's criminal compatriots are brought to justice

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

Everyone has dreams. Fantasies, too.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
foodonastump

Boy, Michael Moore (and the crowd he was addressing at that Bernie rally) were furious about Bloomberg being in the debate. Worth watching that video.


I just watched. He sure was passionate! But that doesn’t make him right. Complaining that Booker and Castro won’t be on stage? First off, neither of them is still in the race. Secondly, even while they were in the race neither one of them could ever lift the needle above a percent or two.


Why even mention them? Because of “diversity”? Next debate will have two women, an Asian, a gay man, and possibly a Jew. Looks pretty diverse to me. Black and Latino were represented but didn’t make the cut. Sorry.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H

No matter the " rules " it would be very difficult to just ignore a candidate sitting in fourth place. However, as I said on another thread , I am not convinced Bloomberg cares if he is on the stage or not. He is already fighting a National battle.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
carolb_w_fl_coastal_9b(zone 9/10)

The Daily Show suggested Bloomberg should just offer Mr. Trump a billion dollars to step down - you know he'd take it in a heartbeat 😆

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

It looks like the left has their supporters all bundled up in little groups, separated by identity politics. They'll never be able to come together. Many of those little groups will feel disenfranchised.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
haydayhayday

Chi:

"It's just propoganda at play. The right has started labeling concepts like healthcare for all citizens as radical progressive policies and socialism. When the reality is that it's a concept that the vast majority of other developed nations have supported for many years, and is not considered "radical" in the least but rather something beneficial for the country and its people.


I'd argue most of the "radical left" ideas are perfectly moderate for most of the world, and it's only because the right has shifted so far right that it makes these ideas look very progressive."


As is typical around here and that extends to the bigger population...The Masses....your comment got a whopping big number of likes.


The Mass of humanity "thinks" just like you.


The mass of humanity doesn't really THINK. Thinking in our evolutionary development is a very recent phenomenon. Most of humanity is still stuck "thinking" like they did in most of our evolutionary history.


For most of our evolutionary history, we were mostly monkey-like creatures living in TRIBES. That's SOCIALISM in just about its most pure form.


Tpday, that kind of primitive "thinking" still persists in our makeup. It's dominant even to this day even though we don't still live in tribes, per se.


The modern result of that is that we will happily vote ourselves into slavery.


Hay

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
haydayhayday

FOAS:


"Why even mention them? Because of “diversity”? Next debate will have two women, an Asian, a gay man, and possibly a Jew. Looks pretty diverse to me. Black and Latino were represented but didn’t make the cut. Sorry."


Both Bernie and Bloomberg are Jews.


(If I'm understanding you.)


Hay


2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Izzy Mn(4)

My prediction. Democrats will vote for whoever is the Democrat no matter who. Republicans will be split between those who think Trump is dangerous and want to vote republican but won't vote because they no longer believe Trump is good for our country, maybe vote for an independent. The other is Trumplicans will vote for Trump.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
haydayhayday


"The modern result of that is that we will happily vote ourselves into slavery."

I'm vacationing this moment in Mexico City and taking lots of tours. Yesterday was with a guy taking us around the impressive Museum of Archeology. At some point he says that the Aztecs lived in a very "Socialist" society. I'm thinking, like tribes weren't always Socialist? Why even point it out?

The rest is history. See where it got them?

Hay


3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
graywings123(7)

I believe most Dems and many others have this opinion:


5 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

"My prediction. Democrats will vote for whoever is the Democrat no matter who. Republicans will be split between those who think Trump is dangerous and want to vote republican but won't vote because they no longer believe Trump is good for our country, maybe vote for an independent. The other is Trumplicans will vote for Trump."

This would describe a landslide Dem victory, agreed?

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Lol Hayday. I simply love your museum guide story! I've had very similar experiences and it's entertaining:)

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kathy

If Romney ran this time, I think he would win.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
graywings123(7)

Interesting tidbit:


4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
vgkg (Va Z-7)

It's a hollow "win" for those 51, just as hollow and empty as their excuses for not calling in the first hand witnesses to testify which they complained about the House not calling on due to trump blanket block. The same block he threatened the senate with. Easier for them to cover it up.


3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
paprikash

It was a hollow, empty and pathetic political shampeachment

6 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H

A majority of Senators, and I expect the number will grow, say what Trump did was wrong. They just don't have the guts to do anything about it.

5 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
loonlakelaborcamp(3 A/B)

Too bad the House Democrats could not name a law he broke...

5 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
foodonastump

Too bad. But you know they didn’t need to, yes?

5 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
loonlakelaborcamp(3 A/B)

How can you legally impeach without a high crime or misdemeanor?

5 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
queenmargo

Too bad. But you know they didn’t need to, yes?

LOL, no really they should have, lol they did not prove nuttin;)

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H

"How can you legally impeach without a high crime or misdemeanor?"

That's actually a bit of a condrum isn't it given Republicans say a sitting President can't be charged with a crime.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

"Too bad. But you know they didn’t need to, yes?"

Which is one great reason it failed. Lots of people didn't think it was Trump's best moment (or a perfect phone call, as Trump thinks it was), but all people, including presidents, have not their best moments every single day. There is a big difference between something deserving of - that wasn't the best choice - and - that was a serious crime or impeachable offense (in the case of a president).

If I run a red light (because I was hurrying to make the yellow and missed it by a fraction of a second meaning I actually entered the intersection when it had already changed to red) is a heck of a lot different than running a red light, hitting a pedestrian, and fleeing the scene. One is truly serious, the other is not the best choice.

I understand some here think Trump committed an impeachable offense, but that is most certainly a debatable point! I think the bigger part of it was Dems desperately want Trump removed so they decided to grasp at straws to try to dramatize a rather ordinary event into an impeachable event - and, predictably, that failed.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kathy

Trump tried for months. It wasn’t a one off phone call. He started in late May or June. He asked Bolton to do it. Then he resorted to RG and others.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

That's one spelling error I might consider fixing, lol. It's reads a little funny as written:)

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
HU-885118952

Ann, I think it wasn't just that Trump did not commit an impeachable offense, but the process in the House was grossly unfair and partisan to the point of weaponizing impeachment.

That's how the Democrats and the MSDNC media spun and sold it, but the fact is that Trump was not given due process, not allowed representation and not allowed to call witnesses or cross examine witnesses in what can best be compared to a Star chamber.

The House did not give the President due process and yet, they bellowed about not getting due process in the Senate.


3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kathy

The Dems should have thrown the book at Trump instead of picking and choosing. There is much more that he could have been charged with.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
olliesmom

Kathy, I would advise you and most Dems on here, to not listen to CNN or MSNBC, for starters, for the most part. They lie to Dems and get them riled up. I am actually not being sarcastic here. They actually had Dems believing that Trump was going to be removed from office. If I was a Dem, I'd be stressed out too, listening to all the lies they are told, and being let down, time and time again.

eta: I have listened to all, CNN, MSNBC and Fox. Fox is almost always right. I'm not some die-hard Fox fan, just looking at the outcome of most fake stories I hear from Dem news, and most Dem news never comes to fruition.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
HU-885118952

Only unhinged partisans, ie: the Democrats and MSDNC media, could look at how the House Dems proceeded and conclude it was anything other than a sham. The Senate was duty-bound to reject the Articles.

6 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
HU-885118952

olliesmom, I think they should be upset that Democrats foisted the burden of proof on the Senate and abdicated their duties, so they could rush impeachment.

Including and especially, not taking the House vote on impeachment inquiry.

6 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
olliesmom

HU-52, Exactly!!

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
paprikash

Impeachment should only be used for high crimes and misdemeanors and never ever for partisan political purposes. Ukraine is but a pimple on the butt.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Izzy Mn(4)

What's going to happen in the future when the excuse for leveraging for dirt on your political opponent is " I was doing it for the good of the country and winning a election, and me winning is for the good of the country." That is one of the many argument Dershowitz gave.

Is this really a good thing.

Is this what the the father's of the Constitution wanted?

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
olliesmom

Izzy, let's turn it around and say, NO future President has a right to investigate possible corruption? It just so happens, bad luck for Biden's, whether it came by honestly or not, they should be investigated.

And, if it tables were turned (again) and it was that Trump was running for office and Biden was President, you can bet Biden would be questioning Trump and Trump, Jr too.

Biden's should have never have been in that situation to begin with.


5 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
HU-885118952

olliesmom, let's take it to its logical conclusion: No future President will have the right to condition foreign aid. Won't be able to use the discretion of the Executive Office.

Only if he or she is Republican, of course.

5 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
ubro(2a)


HU-885118952

olliesmom, let's take it to its logical conclusion: No future President will have the right to condition foreign aid. Won't be able to use the discretion of the Executive Office.

BS, they can condition aide, as all countries have been doing up till now, they just cannot do it for personal gain.


1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
carolb_w_fl_coastal_9b(zone 9/10)

Investigating corruption? Our president need look no further than his own office for that! And really? Trying to argue there was no law violated? The GAO determined there was:

https://www.gao.gov/products/B-331564

And some people seem to be unaware that high crimes does not mean a strictly criminal act. This is not a criminal trial and people show their ignorance by conflating that with an impeachment trial.

And punditry is not news reporting - it's opinion. Most of what's on cable 'news' throughout the day and night is punditry, in case anyone didn't know that already.

Most folks would be extremely surprised if this sham trial resulted in removal of the president. Nobody ever expected that. Democrats from the House were asking for a fair trial with new witnesses and evidence - which most everybody wants - except the folks who keep saying it would guarantee the president's removal. Now why would they even go there, one may wonder?

McConnell announced early on that removal would not even be on the table, so all these rote GOP arguments are clearly post hoc sophistry. GOP Senators who voted against allowing witnesses now want the chance the 'explain' their vote.

Allowing witnesses & evidence in the Senate trial would've allowed us to see and hear these things. WH counsel would've been able to call their own witnesses in defense of the president - why wouldn't they want to? Why complain that the House impeachment investigation was too rushed, then complain that the Senate trial is too slow? How does that make any sense at all?

And WH counsel and others did not tell the truth when they claimed the president was denied a chance to participate in the House investigation. He declined to appear and ordered his staff to defy subpoenas.

Try doing that the next time you are served a subpoena, why don't you, and see whether or not that is considered lawful?

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
loonlakelaborcamp(3 A/B)

Carolb stated "And some people seem to be unaware that high crimes does not mean a strictly criminal act."

Explain how a high crime or a misdemeanor can be anything other than a criminal act.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
nancy_in_venice_ca Sunset 24 z10

Impeachment is not the same as a criminal trial in the US legal system.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
carolb_w_fl_coastal_9b(zone 9/10)

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/High+Crimes+and+Misdemeanors

"...Originating in English Common Law, these words have acquired a broad meaning in U.S. law. They refer to criminal actions as well as any serious misuse or abuse of office, ranging from Tax Evasion to Obstruction of Justice. The ultimate authority for determining whether an offense constitutes a ground for impeachment rests with Congress.

The exact meaning of the phrase cannot be found in the Constitution itself. Article II, Section 4, establishes, "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors." Treason and bribery are specific, but high crimes and misdemeanors is not. In fact, considerable debate occupied the Framers of the Constitution over the issue of impeachment, and the wording of the grounds for impeachment was itself controversial. A proposed offense of maladministration was rejected as being too vague and susceptible to political abuse. Finally, they chose to use a phrase from English common law that had no precisely settled meaning at the time yet at least connoted serious offenses.

The reason for the choice lies in the Framers' approach to the larger question of impeachment. Although borrowing language from the law they knew best, they explicitly chose not to imitate the English model of impeachment. Traditionally, this approach had allowed the British Parliament to conduct a simple review of charges and then remove officials by a majority vote. Instead, the Framers intended for removal from office to be the final step in a two-part process that began in the House of Representatives and, if charges should result, ended in a trial-like hearing before the U.S. Senate. Thus, two goals would be achieved: a full public inquiry into allegations, and, if necessary, the adjudication of those charges requiring a two-thirds majority for removal.

Generally, debate over the phrase high crimes and misdemeanors has split into two camps. The minority view is held by critics who undertake a literal reading of the Constitution. They maintain that high crimes means what it says—criminal activity—and argue that the Framers wanted only criminal activities to be the basis for impeachment. The generally accepted viewpoint is much broader. It defines high crimes and misdemeanors as any serious abuse of power—including both legal and illegal activities. Supporters of this reading believe that because impeachment is a public inquiry, first and fore-most, it is appropriate to read the phrase broadly in order to provide the most thorough inquiry possible. Thus, a civil officer may face impeachment for misconduct, violations of oath of office, serious incompetence, or, in the case of judges, activities that undermine public confidence or damage the integrity of the judiciary...."

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

Trying to argue there was no law violated? The GAO determined there was...

Carol, if you do an internet search, you'll find articles listing the seven times the GAO determined that Obama broke the law. The GAO's decisions aren't legally binding. If you think they are evidence of legal violations, why do you think were there no consequences for Obama's seven violationsduring his years in office?

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

Carol: McConnell announced early on that removal would not even be on the table, so all these rote GOP arguments are clearly post hoc sophistry.

McConnell said in early November that if a vote had been held at that time, the votes would not exist to remove Trump from office.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/mcconnell-predicts-trump-impeachment-trial-would-not-lead-removal-if-n1076811

It's hardly McConnell's fault if the votes didn't exist in the Senate to remove Trump. At the time of McConnell's statement, Schiff's closed door hearings were still being conducted with no counsel presence allowed for the President, and no ability for him to call witnesses. No public hearings had been held yet, but Pelosi's resolution (just passed) had already specified that Trump's counsel would be completely blocked from Schiff's public hearings as well.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
vgkg (Va Z-7)

The Dems should have thrown the book at Trump instead of picking and choosing. There is much more that he could have been charged with.

On day one the demos could have impeached trump for the Stormy payoff which funneled campaign funds through Cohen who was paid later, but the demos were not in charge.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
vgkg (Va Z-7)

I have listened to all, CNN, MSNBC and Fox. Fox is almost always right.

Sure, right as rain from all of the Clinton accusations from the 90's, drum beating for Bush's stupid war, and all the way up until more recently....


4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kathy

Vgkg, That’s why the RW is so misinformed.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
carolb_w_fl_coastal_9b(zone 9/10)

How soon we forget...?

"...McConnell openly telegraphed his intention to stand with Trump even as the House was completing impeachment proceedings in December.

In a Dec. 12 appearance on Fox News, McConnell said there was “zero chance” Trump would be removed from office. “I’m going to take my cues from the president’s lawyers,” he said. “We’ll be working through this process hopefully in a fairly short period of time, in total coordination with the White House counsel’s office and the people who are representing the president.”..."

What he said in November is irrelevant.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

Carol, McConnell said the same thing in December, in the article you linked in your post. From the December 12 Fox article linked above:

"The case is so darn weak coming over from the House. We all know how it's going to end," McConnell said on "Hannity." "There is no chance the president is going to be removed from office."

McConnell also said he hoped that none of the members of his caucus would vote to remove the president from office, adding "it wouldn't surprise me if we got one or two Democrats" to vote to acquit Trump of the charges of high crimes and misdemeanors."

Just like in November, McConnell is talking about voting. He says there was no chance that Trump would be removed because the case was weak. That's how the system works; the Senate votes on the case. If it's weak, it fails. Nothing nefarious there; the problem was the poor case, not McConnell.

The writer of your excerpt (from the Huffington Post, although not credited) seems to imply some kind of a fix is in, regarding the Senate's decision about the case. But McConnell was talking about the logistics of how the process would go forward.

From the video in your link, McConnell actually says:

"Under the rules of impeachment, the Senate then turns to it, has no option but to turn to it, and it's the sole business until we finish. How we can impact that, really is just with 51 votes. The Chief Justice is in the chair; I don't expect the Chief Justice to tilt the playing field either way; we'll listen to the opening arguments by the House prosecutors, we'll listen to the President's lawyers respond, and then we'll have to make a decision about the way forward.

And everything I do during this, I'm coordinating with White House counsel. There will be no difference between the President's position and our position as to how to handle this, to the extent that we can....We'll be working through this process, hopefully in a short period of time, coordinating with the White House Council, and the people representing the President in the well of the Senate."

That's exactly what happened. The case was heard.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

Mud, I don't think carol understands, and I'm not sure how to accomplish that. I give you much credit for the attempts.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

Well, Carol doesn't have to be swayed by any of this. I wanted to run it down to find the real words by McConnell that were used to claim (in sites like Huffington Post) that McConnell had stated he would "stand with Trump," implying the trial was fixed before it began.

The funny thing is, it's obvious the partisan, rushed, and unfair process in the House actually was designed to reach a pre-designed conclusion: to impeach Trump. So of course that's exactly what the left accuses McConnell of doing in the Senate.

Projection.

5 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
carolb_w_fl_coastal_9b(zone 9/10)

Swayed that a great number of people were thinking there was ever a good chance Mr. Trump will not be acquitted by the GOP controlled Senate, when every news outlet, pundit and GOP itself has been broadcasting the opposite from the start? That's absurd.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Jonnygun(zone 7)

If those losers in the House presented anything even slightly damning this may have had a different outcome. Instead they presented third and fourth hand slander no better than the Steele dossier and act shocked. Just pathetic really.

7 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

Carol: Democrats from the House were asking for a fair trial with new witnesses and evidence - which most everybody wants -

The fairness should have started in the House of Representatives. Where was your voice requesting fairness, then?

5 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

Crickets...

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H

More and more Republican Senators are saying that Trump did wrong but it didn't warrant removal this close to an election, or some variant on that theme. I expect more will say something similar this PM.

The argument is no longer that the case for wrongdoing was misplaced but that the grievance isn't worthy of removal at this time rather it should be left to voters to decide if his bad acts warrant removal.

Thank you Republican Senators, to me this shifts the entire 2020 argument from Trump is innocent to Trump did wrong and it is up to us to show him we won't accept that . Better yet Republicans own words can be used to sell the message.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kathy

The Senate is shutting down evidence and the DOJ has been complicit in covering up Trump’s crimes. The House should have charged Trump with bribery or extortion instead of Abuse of power. The Reps make a play on words because they are in denial of the seriousness of Trump’s abuse of power. Why? Because his power affects their power. It will be too late when he goes against the GOP which he will eventually. They are nothing more than conductors of his agenda until he needs them no more. His loyalty is reliant on what someone can do for him. Then they are discarded.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Jonnygun(zone 7)

That's right, shift those goal posts a little more. It is funny despite being pathetic.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

"More and more Republican Senators are saying that Trump did wrong but it didn't warrant removal this close to an election, or some variant on that theme. I expect more will say something similar this PM."

Which ones? I can't think of any of them who have changed their opinion since the beginning.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
queenmargo

LOL Ann, let them have a glimmer;)

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

"The argument is no longer that the case for wrongdoing was misplaced but that the grievance isn't worthy of removal at this time rather it should be left to voters to decide if his bad acts warrant removal."

I think the argument is and always was, there never was a "case" (or even close to it) for impeachment. This was a case for impeachment. Why did you refer to it as a "case for wrongdoing"?

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kathy

They have changed their opinion. They now admit he is guilty. They just refuse to listen to more evidence so they can claim he shouldn’t be impeached. You are right their minds were made up before the trial and they are merely assuring more evidence won’t change their mind. They really don’t want the voters to hear more evidence because they need to sell their decision to their constituents.

He’s guilty but they don’t care. It the So What defense.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Guilty of what, Kathy?

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kathy

Abuse of power and obstructing Congress.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Kathy, I guess we'll find out if he's found guilty or acquitted of the two articles of impeachment on Wednesday, won't we?

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Jonnygun(zone 7)

See, funny!

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kathy

Of course the Senate will let him off the hook. They don’t want the truth. They want to get this over before more evidence comes out. Bolton, Parnas, emails withheld by DOJ. They are all lurking in the background.

Some of the lawyers were even in on the Ukraine coverup and now are arguing for Trump. It’s a swamp in the WH for sure.

5 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

They don’t want the truth.

I'm sorry. In America, you have to prove guilt of a crime beyond any reasonable doubt. "Wanting" something is irrelevant. The crats accusations have been falsified by their own witnesses. You have to ignore the evidence, pretend that something perfectly legal is a crime, and "WANT" to see something that doesn't exist.

Insanity.

6 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
foodonastump

If you want to liken it to a criminal case then what we have is the jury telling the prosecutor that they don’t want to see prosecution witnesses.

And you are the gallery, pretending that the first hand witness who says he’s willing to testify, doesn’t exist.

Insanity.

5 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Ditto to lurkers most recent comment!

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H

"I think the argument is and always was, there never was a "case" (or
even close to it) for impeachment. This was a case for impeachment.
Why did you refer to it as a "case for wrongdoing"?

I think it would be more accurate to state that there never was a case that proved the wrongdoings charged rose to the level of an impeachable offense than to say there never was a case for impeachment.

You don't prove impeachment, you prove whether the crimes charged are impeachable. Impeachment isn't the charge, it's the outcome.

The wrongdoing was abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The Senate isn't ruling on Impeachment, that is done. They are ruling on whether the wrongdoings cited in the Articles of Impeachment warrant removal from office. Sort of like saying yes he stole something but it's wasn't serious enough to convict him of grand theft so we are letting him walk.

The point I am making is that Republican Senators are admitting the wrongdoings happened but stating the remedy of impeachment and removal is not warranted. That is a significant shift from he didn't do anything wrong.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

Just face the facts. The crats don't have anything other than propaganda. Their own witnesses proved it beyond any reasonable doubt. Bolton doesn't have any evidence of anything. He said she said. Again, Trump didn't do anything wrong. schiff has been meeting with Bolton. I wouldn't believe anything they say. Just a controversy to keep the sham going, and to promote a book. Is it listed as fiction?

I'm only interested in why the crats are so well off in Ukraine.

You don't prove impeachment, you prove whether the crimes charged are
impeachable. Impeachment isn't the charge, it's the outcome.

No duh. The charges against Trump are bogus. Everyone knows it.

Manufactured nonsense.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Joaniepoanie

Total nonsense the argument for acquitting because “it’s election year.” Trump is guilty so he should be removed, even if the vote were to take place October 31st. This is all about senate reelections.

Several weeks ago I heard a panel discuss a vote for higher taxes during the Clinton years in a midterm election year. A vote for higher taxes would certainly jeopardize getting reelected, yet there were Dems who followed their conscience and belief that higher taxes were justified, and some did lose their seats as a result.

Trump has committed crimes and some Republicans have actually admitted he has, yet they won’t summon the courage to do the right thing. They all deserve to lose reelection.


2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

"That is a significant shift from he didn't do anything wrong. "

Again, which senators shifted? This is the second time you've discussed this in this thread and you've mentioned it in other threads lately. Clearly, you must have senators in mind prompting you to keep bringing this up. Which ones?

5 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

Trump has committed crimes

Prove it. The crats need your help. They have nothing.

Joe confessed.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
carolb_w_fl_coastal_9b(zone 9/10)

FYI, impeachment is not the same as removal - which would be a possible outcome of a Senate trial. Impeachment is the investigation and charges.


impeachment |imˈpēCHmənt|

noun

the action of calling into question the integrity or validity of something: the prosecutor's detailed impeachment of the character witness.

chiefly US a charge of misconduct made against the holder of a public office: the president is facing impeachment over the scandal | all impeachments shall be tried by the Senate.

Brit. a charge of treason or another crime against the state: the king cynically abandoned him, encouraging his impeachment.


And the repeated claims that House investigation has been in any way out of order does not merit a rebuttal, other than it is plainly and provably false.

And the impeachment investigation is still open, it seems. Bolton may still be subpoenaed.

P.S. Are people arguing things without informing themselves? Or is it just an arguing tactic to feign ignorance? Lamar Alexander's statements have been all over the news, so it would be surprising that someone who wants to debate this was unaware of that.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H

"Again, which senators shifted? This is the second time you've discussed
this in this thread and you've mentioned it in other threads lately.
Clearly, you must have senators in mind prompting you to keep bringing
this up. Which ones?"

I'm not gong to spend too much time on this but off the top of my head Lamar Alexander, Rob Portman, Marco Rubio ( who even went so far as to say the acts were worthy of impeachment) and to a lesser degree Joni Ernst. Although they haven't said it outright yet that I know you can probably count Mitt Romney and Susan Collins in that.

ETA. I never said specific Senators shifted. It's the narrative that has shifted.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Nana, what source/s, quotes (or anything) do you have that informs you any of these 6 senators have "shifted" their opinion since hearing the Dem accusations and reading the call transcript in the very beginning? With any of the six, what statement of opinion from them did you hear or read in the beginning and then now, that you identify as a shift?

You have tossed out this "shift" narrative several times now, and I'm trying to see if you are simply guessing and tossing it out or if you have anything at all to back it up. So far, you've provided no sources, quotes of theirs, or anything at all to indicate they've shifted.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H

Ann, reread my post. I am saying the NARRATIVE has shifted . I did not say that specific Senators have shifted.

Up until last week no Republican with the exception of Romney was admitting to any wrongdoing. Now they are. I am quite surprised that your preferred news network has not reported these Senators remarks...or maybe I'm not.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
margaritadina

''

Chi:
"It's just propoganda at play. The right has started labeling
concepts like healthcare for all citizens as radical progressive
policies and socialism. ''


Illegal aliens are CITIZENS now? OK.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Nana, thanks for the recent Mother Jones source, which says not a single thing about a "shift". In your quote (below), you are clearly speaking of a "shift" from "he didn't do anything wrong" to "admitting wrongdoings". When and where did any of them make that shift.

"The point I am making is that Republican Senators are admitting the wrongdoings happened but stating the remedy of impeachment and removal is not warranted. That is a significant shift from he didn't do anything wrong."


2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H

Ann, are you saying that prior to last week Republicans were openly admitting wrong doing?

Up until last week no admission of wrongdoing ... Now open admission there was wrongdoing.

I call that a shift ........you can call it whatever you want.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Nana: "Up until last week no Republican with the exception of Romney was admitting to any wrongdoing. Now they are. I am quite surprised that your preferred news network has not reported these Senators remarks...or maybe I'm not. "

Nana: "Ann, are you saying that prior to last week Republicans were openly admitting wrong doing?

Up until last week no admission of wrongdoing ... Now open admission there was wrongdoing.

I call that a shift ........you can call it whatever you want."

Nana, I'll help. These quotes were from a Huff Post article in the first week of November, so these quotes happened at some point prior to that:

Pat Toomey: "While the conversation reported in the memo relating to alleged Ukrainian corruption and VP Biden’s son was inappropriate, it does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense.”

John Cornyn: "Do I wish President Trump hadn’t raised the issue with the Ukrainian president? Yes ... But really, is it right for Democrats to now call for his removal for office over this?”

Ted Cruz: "Donald Trump says things frequently that I wish he wouldn’t say. I don’t have control over that. The fact that he shouldn’t have gone down that road is a long way from saying, ‘Therefore, he should be impeached and forcibly removed from office after the American people have voted in a presidential election."

Marco Rubio: "I don’t think he should have raised the topic of Joe Biden with the Ukrainian president. I just don’t think our U.S. ... foreign policy should be used as leverage against individuals in our domestic politics.”

Lamar Alexander: "It is “inappropriate for the president to be talking with foreign governments about investigating his political opponents.” However, “impeachment would be a mistake.”

John Thune: "The picture coming out of it based on the reporting we’ve seen is, yeah, I would say is not a good one"

Murkowski: "You don’t hold up foreign aid that we had previously appropriated for a political initiative. Period.”

ETC.


2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
leona_2008

The House Managers are bringing it home speaking of integrity, right and wrong, and Schiff guaranteeing trump will cheat again. Just a few of the many fine points they are making.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Wants to Grow

Here's what we've learned from Trump's impeachment trial

"That America's foreign policy can be bought, like a sack of potatoes."---Senator John Kennedy

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

Well said, Ann. I sure do appreciate your propensity to back up your assertions with accurate information.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

Wants to Grow

Here's what we've learned from Trump's impeachment trial

"That America's foreign policy can be bought, like a sack of potatoes."---Senator John Kennedy

Yes, well the Bidens' schemes will be brought out into the light of day. I'm sure that's a work in progress, since well before Joe announced his intention to run.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H

Sorry but I see it quite differently. What a surprise.

Up until last week there was some vague references to maybe it wasn' t quite right, maybe a bit inappropriate but now it is a definitive statement he was wrong to do what he did. For example Rubio has even gone so far as to say it was an impeachable offense, although he is trying to walk that back.

I see that as a shift. No one says you have to.


1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
HU-885118952

I've learned that Democrats are willing to turn hundreds of years of American jurisprudence on its head in order to get power. I've watched the horror of Democrats maligning the rights of the accused, and our system of "innocent until proven guilty" by the repeated claims that if the Trump-the defendant- does not prove his own innocence, well then, that de facto means he's guilty.

This is what Democrats are willing to do to the President. Imagine what they'll do to you and me.

5 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

It's always interesting to hear a Canadian's view of US politics. Thank you, friendly neighbor!

ETA: Not directed to HU52.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
ubro(2a)

Explain how a high crime or a misdemeanor can be anything other than a criminal act


.misdemeanour | mɪsdɪˈmiːnə | (US misdemeanor)

noun

1 a minor wrongdoing: the player can expect a suspension for his latest misdemeanour.

2 Law a non-indictable offence, regarded in the US (and formerly in the UK) as less serious than a felony: he pleaded guilty to misdemeanours.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
nancy_in_venice_ca Sunset 24 z10

Democrats are willing to turn hundreds of years of American jurisprudence on its head in order to get power.

Impeachment is a political act outlined in the US Constitution, and is an act entirely separate from our legal system.

This fact has been noted many times on Hot Topics.

7 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mrskjun(9)

We learned that the lyin, cryin, Shifty Schiff deserves an Oscar. He put on a show that Hamlet would be proud of. Now, if he would just exit stage left.

6 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

Impeachment is a political act outlined in the US Constitution, and is an act entirely separate from our legal system.

Maybe coming from you, Nancy, that will stick. It's amazing how many keep babbling about "can't have a trial without new witnesses".

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H

Lindsey Graham thought Sciff's presentation was fantastic. Senators like Lamar Alexander thought he proved the case. Maybe a show but apparently a good one.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
bleusblue2

"It's amazing how many keep babbling"

~~~

Oh, really now.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

Impeachment is a political act outlined in the US Constitution, and is an act entirely separate from our legal system.

Yes, we know. It is a political process for removing a president for committing "high crimes and misdemeanors", such as treason and bribery, as dictated by our constitution, and defined by our legal system.

HTH

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

"Lindsey Graham thought Schiff's presentation was fantastic."

Might as well post what he really said instead of interpreting what "Lindsey Graham thought". I think actual quotes tend to be more accurate than interpretations, and this was very easy to obtain.

""He's well spoken, did a good job of creating a tapestry, taking bits and pieces of evidence and emails and giving a rhetorical flourish, making the email come alive -- sometimes effectively, sometimes a little over the top," the South Carolina Republican said about Schiff, who has been laying out the House's case against Trump."

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chipotle

Someone's afraid of the truth.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
queenmargo

Someone's afraid of the truth.

Well, who?

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Del Phinium

"This fact has been noted many times on Hot Topics."

So has "how the Electoral College works", yet, to this very day, we're still hearing from the Left that President Trump didn't win the 2016 General Election because Hillary "got more votes" than he did. Shrug.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

I daresay some of our Canadian posters know more about our Electoral College than many American posters do.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
nancy_in_venice_ca Sunset 24 z10

President Trump didn't win the 2016 General Election because Hillary "got more votes" than he did.

This is a true statement; Hillary won the popular vote aka general election.

Trump won the electoral college -- the vote that determines who will be POTUS.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Del Phinium

LOL! Fine, Nancy. Monica Lewinsky's ex-boyfriend's wife won a meaningless popularity contest, that literally counted for absolutely nothing, and Donald J. Trump won the Presidency of the United States of America. Happy? :)

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
nancy_in_venice_ca Sunset 24 z10

Yes, I am happy when US persons recognize that the election of POTUS requires two separate votes.

First the general election, and then the vote of the electoral college.


1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
HU-885118952

Susan Collins leaves everyone waiting for her ultimate and considered opinion. Well, we learned that after the Kavanaugh witch hunt.

After much anticipation, Collins argues that the threshold for a finding of guilt and removal, is that the President must not be allowed to stay in office one moment longer.

Collins feels it was wrong of Trump to mention Biden in terms of investigating him. Yet, the House did not demonstrate support Article I of impeachment.

She will vote to acquit on Article I. The delay in transmitting that Article defies the notion that Trump most not be allowed to stay in office one moment longer.

(Bad move, Nancy. We all knew it)


Collins took aim at the House for not pursuing every avenue available to them for doing their job. "Speed over finality". They skipped steps and went straight to impeachment as a first resort.

Collins will vote to acquit on Article II.


Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
HU-885118952

"We should entrust to the people the most fundamental decision of a Democracy; namely, who should lead their country."

Thank you, Susan Collins.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
catkinZ8a

No crimes were committed by President Trump.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Chi

Of course she will. McConnell gave her the hall pass to vote for witnesses as a hail mary for her re-election, and now she will get in line like the good little soldier she is.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Joaniepoanie

Ha! Collins, along with every other R senator, was going to vote to acquit even if Nancy had turned the Articles over within 30 seconds. She’s a mamby-pamby game player who wants to have her cake and it too.

The acquittal will bite Repubs in the behind as they green light Trump’s full on authoritarianism. Maybe he’ll keep himself somewhat in check until after the election, but if he’s Puty-elected again, he’ll really be drunk with power.


1 Like Save    
Browse Gardening and Landscaping Stories on Houzz See all Stories
Life 12 Very Useful Things I've Learned From Designers
These simple ideas can make life at home more efficient and enjoyable
Full Story
Working With an Architect See What You Can Learn From a Floor Plan
Floor plans are invaluable in designing a home, but they can leave regular homeowners flummoxed. Here's help
Full Story
Decorating Guides 15 Remodeling ‘Uh-Oh’ Moments to Learn From
The road to successful design is paved with disaster stories. What’s yours?
Full Story